Jurors in the second Apple v. Samsung patent trial in California, who were scheduled to begin deliberations early next week, will now hear an additional two hours of testimony clarifying a key phrase used in one of Apple's patents-in-suit.

Just as the Apple v. Samsung case was winding down, presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Friday said she will give each side an extra hour to address the implications of a ruling handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that same day, reports The Verge.

While the CAFC ruling deals with a separate action between Apple and Motorola, there is overlap with the California case in Apple's '647 patent covering "quick links" or "data detectors." With its decision, the CAFC overturned a prior dismissal by Judge Richard Posner, essentially reviving the Motorola case.

As noted by Re/code, the federal appeals court's ruling disagreed with Apple's claim construction of its '647 patent. Specifically, the court sided with Judge Posner's definition of a particular patent claim involving an "analyzer server," which the jurist described as "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client."

Because the Apple v. Samsung jury was given a different definition of analyzer servers, as presented by Apple, clarification is needed to render a sound decision. To that end, two expert witnesses, Carnegie Mellon professor Todd Mowry and University of North Carolina professor Kevin Jeffay, will be called in to offer testimony.

Apple and Samsung were originally scheduled to offer their respective two-hour closing arguments on Monday, though the timeline has shifted presentation to Tuesday with jury deliberations to follow.

In its case against Samsung, Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages for lost profits and royalties on five alleged infringed patents. Throughout the trial, Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million assuming 37 million infringing devices.

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.Edited by EricTheHalfBee - 4/26/14 at 10:36pm

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the a Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machine.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million

Should we believe the thief

Do you mean the good thief or the bad thief ? Or do you really believe that Apple has never copied patented algorithms registered to other third parties and that all the court decisions that found Apple to have wilfully infringed were a communist plot :-) or made by Judges and Juries paid to hate Apple. ?

Samson rips off many companies they are really good at copying other products
Many companies infringe on some things are debatable what's not in question . Samson are guilty and I for one disgusted samsung's behaviour that's only my opinion
I used to buy samsung's Products not any more !Edited by comley - 4/27/14 at 1:26am

Samson rips off many companies they are really good at copying other products
Many companies infringe on some things are debatable what's not in question . Samson are guilty and I for one disgusted samsung's behaviour that's only my opinion
I used to buy samsung's Products not any more !

Of course you buy Samsung products .. they are inside almost every device on the market to some extent.

But I take your point and you are quite entitled to hold any view that you find appropriate. I just think it is naive to believe that ethical considerations play any big role, despite the incantations to the contrary, in any company who'se driving motive is profit or "shareholder value". Its about money.

I frankly don't find Apple or Samsung or any of the others for that matter, have a monopoly on being the good guys.

Of course you buy Samsung products .. they are inside almost every device on the market to some extent.

But I take your point and you are quite entitled to hold any view that you find appropriate. I just think it is naive to believe that ethical considerations play any big role, despite the incantations to the contrary, in any company who'se driving motive is profit or "shareholder value". Its about money.

I frankly don't find Apple or Samsung or any of the others for that matter, have a monopoly on being the good guys.

Components in devices I buy like the iPhone yes I can't help that . But their product line I do not purchase any more !Edited by comley - 4/27/14 at 4:53am

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

Would manually calling "find and replace" be considered an instance of a server? Linkify recognizes links in a body of text only because the programmer explicitly invokes "addLinks()" on the TextView:

And the developer documentation describes Linkify as essentially a collection of search-and-replace functions:

"Linkify take a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. " (http://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html) Soit's up to the developer to decide what patterns he wants to search for; Linkify is just a general tool not unlike the unix sed utility. What part of this system would fall under the patent claims? Is it the part about using regular expressions? Since regular expressions were invented to let one search for any pattern, it would seem strange to prohibit one from using them to search for particular strings, such as "*.com" That would be like claiming that using quicksort to sort a particular array of integers is somehow novel or patentable when quicksort is designed to sort any array of items which can be ordered.

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

That was exactly what I was thinking. But I wonder how the courts will define the term "server" if it is not explicitly defined in the patent application? Do they let it be broadly defined or strict such as a remote piece of hardware only? Seems to me that if Apple implements it in a certain way before the question came up that that method should be included in the definition where there is a question as it serves as an example on how the patent is implemented.

And that's why you are a perfect candidate for an Android phone. Which begs the question - what are you doing on an Applecentric site?
Right - FUD.
Thank you for playing, and we have some fabulous parting gifts for you....

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

The proper definition of an analyzer server as it relates to this patent will be "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." That's not the way Apple wants it translated but it may not really matter anyway. There's a good chance that all jurors won't clearly understand it and they're the ones making the call.

The proper definition of an analyzer server as it relates to this patent will be "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." That's not the way Apple wants it translated but it may not really matter anyway. There's a good chance that all jurors won't clearly understand it and they're the ones making the call.

So then a thread that acts as the analyzer server and another thread that's the client. Simple, any App that can do this function infringes.

I only added that because the link from his link provided more detail. Either company is likely to void your warranty in the case of liquid damage. What he linked was just commentary on the effectiveness of the aforementioned water resistance, although it had little to do with the thread.

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:

A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.

A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.

Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.

If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.

The term "server" has nothing to do with separate computers. If you use a Mac you're looking at windows drawn by a process called WindowServer for example. Open Activity Monitor and search for server. I have 7 entries. And there are many more that don't include the word server in their name.

We have more than 10 virtual machines in our Exchange server environment at work). Each one is actually one or more processes within the ESXi hypervisor. They maybe running on the same physical computer. They may not (they aren't by the way). But being a process within another piece of software doesn't make them any less capable of filling the definition of a server.

Any definition of server against Apple because the server and client run on the same computer, or on the same cpu/core, or in the same process or even in the same thread is fundamentally incorrect by any measure in Computer Science.

More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:

A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.

A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.

Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.

If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.

When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.Edited by Gatorguy - 4/28/14 at 6:08am

When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.

I don't pretend to know what was in the mind of the inventor nor, legally speaking, does it matter. Nor does it matter what you or I think we know. All that matters is whether the patent was properly written and whether Samsung can invalidate it for prior art or some other technical reason.

All I am trying to point out is that from a strictly definitional perspective Samsung cannot invalidate the patent by claiming client-server implies separate machines. Such an implication has never existed. When I started writing client-server code over 30 years ago (before we even had sockets), client-server architecture was a wonderful way to partition a project, to force modularity and separation of data structures. It was only as computers became cheaper that we could even afford more than one. The benefits of being able to use the UNIX scheduler to handle multi-tasking and simultaneously serve function to multiple clients were compelling in their own right. Heck, all we had in those days were teletypes and acoustic couplers running at 110 baud. Who even wanted to run off-machine services in such an environment.

Even before UNIX brought ease of programming to a whole new class of programmers, intramachine client-server architecture was well established. I remember a Café system of card readers and teletypes (the clients) where jobs were submitted via card and punched tape to server software that would compile and execute the submitted jobs. All of this was run in a single mainframe environment and embodied all the features of a modern client-server architecture - just more constrained by the available technology.